“OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION”
In his written reply on Wednesday, Mr Shanmugam said that most of the documents shared with AGC were in the context of scheduling the executions of prisoners awaiting capital punishments, also known as PACPs.
“SPS’s practice was to keep AGC informed of developments involving these PACPs, and to seek legal advice on whether there were any relevant pending proceedings, or issues which could give rise to such proceedings, that would require the capital sentence to be held in abeyance,” he said.
“This approach was adopted out of an abundance of caution. The officers who disclosed the documents believed in good faith that they could be shared with AGC, for the purpose of seeking legal advice on scheduling, and ensuring that PACPs’ rights were not infringed in terms of further steps being taken with regard to their sentences.”
Mr Shanmugam also noted that the Court of Appeal ruled that the relevant prisoners’ consent, or an order of court, should have been obtained for the disclosure.
He also pointed out that the Court of Appeal said three out of the 13 prisoners were entitled to only nominal damages of S$10 each for a breach of copyright and there was no basis for the prisoners’ claims for further damages.
There was also no breach of confidence that came about from SPS officers opening or perusing any of the documents, because they were allowed to do so according to prison regulations.
“In addition, the Court of Appeal also accepted in an earlier decision which also dealt with the disclosure of prisoners’ correspondence, that although there was oversight by AGC when it received correspondence from SPS, there was not an attempt to seek any advantage in court proceedings,” he said.
“Our agencies do their best to carry out their responsibilities in accordance with the law. Occasionally, there may be lapses.
“Here the lapses were such that the Court ordered S$10 in damages each, to three of the applicants. SPS has put in place measures to prevent a reoccurrence.”
On the issue of ensuring attorney-client privilege for prisoners, Mr Shanmugam said that under regulations, letters to or from a prisoner’s legal adviser cannot be copied or withheld.
“However, this privilege cannot be at the expense of ensuring security and good order of prisons, which is SPS’s foremost responsibility. This matter will be considered carefully,” he added.
